PLANT-LORE OF SHAKESPEARE 12$ 
poisoning by different medical writers, some of them con¬ 
temporary with him, and some writing with later experiences. 
3. That the post mortem appearances after Yew-poisoning and 
after snake-poisoning are very similar, and it was “given out, 
that sleeping in my orchard, a serpent stung me.” 
But it may well be asked, How could Shakespeare have 
known of all these effects, which (as far as our present search 
has discovered) are not named by any one writer of his time, 
and some of which have only been made public from the 
results of Yew-poisoning since his day ? I think the question 
can be answered in a very simple way. The effects are 
described with such marked minuteness that it seems to me 
not only very probable, but almost certain, that Shakespeare 
must have been an eye-witness of a case of Yew-poisoning, and 
that what he saw had been so photographed on his mind that 
he took the first opportunity that presented itself to reproduce 
the picture. With his usual grand contempt for perfect ac¬ 
curacy, he did not hesitate to sweep aside at once the strict 
historical records of the old king’s death, and in its place to 
paint for us a cold-blooded murder carried out by means which 
he knew from his personal experience to be possible, and which 
he felt himself able to describe with a minuteness which his 
knowledge of his audiences assured him would not be out of 
place even in that great tragedy. 
The objection to the Yew theory of Hebona, that the Yew 
is named by Shakespeare under its more usual name, is no real 
objection. On the same ground Ebony and Henbane must be 
excluded; together with Gilliflowers, which he elsewhere speaks 
of as Carnations; and Woodbine, because he also speaks of 
Honeysuckle. 
